Michael Fallon: The House has just heard the voice of Merton, and my hon. Friend fully supports the position that I have just set out.
	Let us also remember that the percentage for new housing set by Merton is not 90 per cent. or 80 per cent. or even 75 per cent. It is only 10 per cent. So this measure cannot be something that will over-excite the volume house builders. Indeed, some other house builders have told me that they can achieve a premium for houses built under these policies, and that they have no difficulty in doing so.
	Let me turn to some of the specific issues raised in the Bill. I want to emphasise that I am very happy to meet any concerns about the drafting of any part of clause 1 in Committee, if the House allows the Bill to proceed today. In respect of the definition of "part of the proposed development", of course I want it to include near-site as well as on-site, provided that that is connected to the development. I also want to assure developers that this must involve a dedicated supply. They would not necessarily be required to supply energy over a much wider area.
	The provision in clause 1(c) will incentivise councils to reach beyond the minimum building standards, and of course I should like to see that aligned with Government policy on the code for renewable energy. I also want to point out that, as set out at the beginning of clause 1, the whole of my Bill is subject to the test of reasonableness. Developers and house builders will not—cannot—be required to do anything that is unreasonable. In any event, they will be fully consulted in the drawing up of the local development plans to which my Bill refers.
	In the final analysis, Ministers will still have control. It is for Ministers to approve local development plans, and when individual planning applications are taken to appeal the Secretary of State sends her inspectors in to rule on them. I am therefore disappointed that I have not yet heard that Ministers are fully supportive of the Bill, especially as it is they who want all new homes to be zero-carbon by 2016. That is only eight years away, after all. I want local councils to help us to meet that challenge. I fear, however, that Ministers still think that can be done by central prescription.
	This is not a big Bill, but it involves a clear difference of approach. Ministers seem to want circulars, statements and guidance; they seem to want revision after revision and draft after draft.

Robert Key: My own council has a problem that I am sure is common to many rural councils. Does my hon. Friend think that his Bill would be capable of amendment in Committee to address the anomaly whereby people living in areas of outstanding natural beauty who wish to put a solar panel on their roof have to pay £135 and apply for full planning permission? People who do not live in an AONB do not have to do that, as long as their roof does not face a road. Such details present a real disincentive. Does my hon. Friend believe that we could address that matter in Committee?

Martin Caton: I congratulate the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) on coming first in the ballot and, even more importantly, on choosing this issue as the subject for his Bill, which I wholeheartedly support. Perhaps that is no surprise, as it is remarkably similar to my own private Member's Bill of last year. It has a much snappier title, however, and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on that. When my Bill fell by the wayside, I sought to achieve exactly the same objectives through an amendment to the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill, although that attempt also, sadly failed.
	My objectives are exactly the same as those set out in the short Bill before us today. It is an enabling measure. As the hon. Gentleman said, it would not make anyone do anything. It would free local authorities to help to combat climate change using planning policy. It would allow councils to set higher standards for energy efficiency in their development plans than those laid down in building regulations, and allow them to make provision for sustainable energy and microgeneration requirements in the same document.
	That approach has wide support across the House. An early-day motion supporting this kind of legislation was signed by more than 300 Members last year. It also has wide support outside the House, from local government, the sustainable energy partnerships, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Socialist Environment and Resources Association and, of course, from its primary promoters, the Association for the Conservation of Energy and the Micropower Council.
	The Bill is about empowerment, but it is also about encouragement. Climate change is undoubtedly the greatest challenge facing the planet now—perhaps the greatest challenge that it has ever faced. We need every level of government, including local government, to play its part in meeting that challenge. Following the lead of councils such as Woking and Merton, this Bill points planning authorities in the right direction of setting high environmental standards for new developments, residential and non-residential alike.
	This Government's policy of making all new homes zero-carbon by 2016—and the Prime Minister's proposal for new eco-communities—is excellent and we should all support it, but to turn the concept into reality, we need more examples of low and zero-carbon homes than the present small number of experimental buildings, including those about to be constructed. We need them very soon and local authorities can, if enabled to do so, make that happen in planning policy development. As the Government's own Renewables Advisory Board said in November:
	"The zero carbon policy is longsighted and bold and could produce big environmental benefits in existing and new homes if it is used to accelerate the development of decentralised energy services and technology. However"—

Adam Price: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I would like to record Plaid Cymru's full support for the Bill and the principles enshrined within it. I would like to ask him about what may seem a technical constitutional point, but we are talking about decentralising power. Does he agree that it would be worth looking further in Committee into conferring framework powers on the National Assembly, which could be a better means of achieving the Bill's objectives in Wales?

Bill Wiggin: I am just curious why the hon. Gentleman believes that the Government will not support the Bill. We have seen not a twitch from the Minister, yet at a time when the UK has been set a 17 per cent. target for renewable energy and we are achieving only 2 per cent. now, can the hon. Gentleman think of any reason why his own party in government will not support this excellent Bill?

Martin Caton: I think I know what the Government will say—that the ground is already covered in planning policy statements, but I shall come on to say that I do not accept that myself. When my earlier Bill and amendments were up for discussion, I met Ministers and their civil servants many times, but I never really received a satisfactory answer to the question that the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) has just put to me.
	Let me continue to quote what the Renewables Advisory Board said:
	"However the Government's current timescale postpones much of the hard work until 2016, with little opportunity to learn or build capacity in the UK onsite renewables sector in the next eight years. If left unaddressed this could slow house building but we think there are options to overcome this supply gap. This includes using the planning system to require earlier uptake of renewable energy in larger housing developments."
	Up until now, there has been great uncertainty in local government about whether it can or cannot set higher standards. The Bill's supporters certainly advocate that it should.
	Government planning inspectors responsible for overseeing the development plan process have sent out extremely mixed messages. For example, Reading was allowed to specify thermal performance requirements at least 12 per cent. higher than required in building regulations, but Cambridge was made to water down its planning policy, which required large developers to provide evidence of how they had minimised energy consumption and maximised energy efficiency and to consider the feasibility of using combined heat and power systems. To that, the planning inspector said that it was
	"unreasonable to the extent that it imposes more onerous requirements than the Building Regulations".
	The same line was taken by the Government office for the east of England when Bedford borough council wanted to reduce CO2 emissions by 10 per cent. more than in the building regulations in certain developments. We need clarity and active encouragement for ambitious standard setting.
	We are now in a different position from last year because we have the planning policy statement on climate change published in December. That was welcome and certainly moves us in the right direction of travel. It says that councils will be expected to provide for onsite renewables and local community energy schemes to cut carbon emissions in new developments. In the Department for Communities and Local Government press release and, indeed, in letters to myself and other Members, it is claimed that the PPS builds on the Merton rule, which requires all new non-residential developments above a certain size to generate at least 10 per cent. of their energy on site from renewable sources. Then there is the Mayor of London's plan to double the renewables share of UK electricity supply from the 2010 target of 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. by 2020. That all sounds very good and I suspect that the Minister will argue that there is consequently no need to enact the Bill.
	Unfortunately, I do not believe that. The problem is that the policy statement is unlikely to match in achievement the rhetoric that has accompanied it. It contains too many caveats and hurdles to jump over, which will put off all but the most committed local authorities from going for higher standards in their development plans, and it provides loopholes for developers. In reading it, I gained the impression that minimising carbon emissions through planning policy comes a poor second to making development happen. When they set their targets, councils have to
	"have regard to the overall costs of bringing sites to the market (including the costs of any necessary support infrastructure) and the need to avoid any adverse impact on the development needs of communities".
	In respect of housing development and when setting development area or site-specific expectations, councils need to
	"demonstrate that the proposed approach is consistent with securing the expected supply and pace of housing development shown in the housing trajectory required by the Housing Planning Policy Statement of 2006."
	My real fear is that those conditions will be used by some planning inspectors to overrule provision in some local development plans for challenging targets for renewables or other carbon reduction requirements. My even greater fear is that it will deter planning authorities from being as ambitious as they would like. I am also still concerned about the provision for off-site generation of green energy by a developer instead of the on-site generation stipulated in Merton. If that approach is chosen by developers, as I suspect it often will be, we will end up utilising renewables that would have been built anyway, so it does not, in the end, increase green energy capacity. That said, much in the PPS is good and I wish it well, but I do not accept that it obviates the need for this Bill to become law.
	Underlying the resistance to this measure—and, indeed, the caveats in the PPS—is a fear of what councils will do if they are empowered in the way we want them to be. That fear is misplaced and wrong-headed. Councils will not want to deter economic development within their own boundaries, nor prevent the provision of new homes for their citizens. They will weigh up all the factors and set realistic and measured targets. We need reflect only on how things have worked out in green leader councils such as Merton, Woking, Croydon, Knowsley, Calderdale, Sefton, Norwich and many others that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks mentioned to see that this can be done—and done responsibly. Indeed, in making the case for my Bill last year, we asked DCLG officials to provide us with evidence of local authorities that had prevented progress by setting higher environmental standards. We are still waiting for those examples.
	I hope that this Bill receives its econd Reading today. Yes, it will need to be amended in Committee to address Government concerns, but I am sure that it can provide a useful weapon in combating climate change. We should not reject it.

Tom Brake: It is a pleasure to speak in favour of the Bill. The House is rightly focused on the issues of climate change and planning, which is exactly what the Bill does in highlighting those two critical issues.
	I welcome the three main objectives set out in the Bill. Hon. Members will have noticed that clause 1 states that a local planning authority
	"may...specify that any person making an application for planning permission should include such reasonable provision",
	going on to list the three areas in which it applies. I emphasise the word "may", which means that the Bill is not prescriptive, but provides local authorities with the flexibility they need to implement policies that are appropriate to their areas. Broadly speaking, we are all supportive of that and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has repeatedly stated the importance of allowing local authorities to take their own decisions.
	The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton), who ran with the issue before—I hope that this Bill receives more success—said that the Bill makes nobody do anything. Normally, I would object to that in principle, but in this case it is entirely right, as the Bill provides flexibility to local authorities. The Bill sets out the powers that a local authority would have to specify the generation of energy from renewable sources, the generation of low-carbon energy and an appropriate and more challenging energy efficiency standard for any proposed development in its area.
	The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) rightly indicated that the Bill might require refinement, as is often the case with private Members' Bills. Regrettably, private Members do not have the same level of resource as Ministers when they prepare Bills. This process should provide the opportunity to refine the Bill if the Minister feels that it is not as precise as it should be.
	All Members will appreciate why the Bill is needed. Since 1997, CO2 emissions have gone up. Far from tackling what is, in the words of the Government's chief scientific adviser, the "biggest challenge we face"—a real global threat—we have seen CO2 emissions rising. The Bill would help in that respect.
	The Bill would also counter the potential impact of the Planning Bill. I do not know how closely Members have been following that Bill, but part of it would set up the infrastructure planning commission. If the Government get their way, the IPC will authorise up to 50 large-scale infrastructure projects a year. There is a real concern that the safeguards in that Bill in relation to environmental issues are weak. The IPC might allow through a raft of significant developments such as nuclear power stations or airports, which will have a very negative impact on climate change. This Bill will counterbalance that by tackling CO2 emissions in local developments.
	This Bill will also help the Government face the very tough task of meeting the targets set by the European Union. Other Members will have looked at the research paper helpfully produced by the Library, and will be as familiar as I am with the table on page 10 setting out the UK's achievement in generating electricity from renewable energy in comparison with other EU countries. I am afraid to say that the UK performs very badly. A few countries are doing worse than we are—Malta, which has no figures, Estonia, Belgium and Poland. But the list of countries doing better than the UK includes the Czech Republic, Hungary, Ireland, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Latvia, Sweden and Austria. The UK is performing exceedingly poorly in providing more electricity from renewable sources.
	The Bill is also necessary because it allows local authorities to introduce tougher energy efficiency standards. Again, our performance in that regard is, I am afraid, pathetic. Members are probably sick to death of references to BedZED, a zero-energy development in my constituency. Its first occupiers moved in four years ago, but it is still an exemplar of its type. All aspects of the development, from using recycled materials in its construction, through to triple glazing and the highest energy efficiency standards, with green roofs and so on, minimise energy use. I remember BioRegional, the developers, coming to my surgery nearly nine years ago, and yet the UK has made little progress since then.

Tom Brake: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's comments. More imagination is also required to allow certain smaller schemes to go ahead. Russell Smith, a constituent of mine, gutted his brick-built semi-detached property, which is typical of the UK housing stock that will be with us probably for the next 50, 60 or 70 years, and installed a range of insulation measures, panels and so on to demonstrate how an existing property of the type that most people live in could be transformed suitably into an energy-efficient dwelling. He was frustrated in getting permission to install a small combined heat and power plant, and ended up having to give up on that, as it proved too complex. We need to look at what is happening abroad and ensure that we are more flexible in our approach.
	It is a regret not that the Merton rule exists but that it is called the Merton rule. It is significant that one local authority in the UK has given us the name Merton rule as a way of describing local authorities that are taking the lead environmentally. I doubt very much whether Germany has something called the Munich rule or the Hamburg rule, because all local authorities there are involved, and there is no need to point to one local authority that is way in advance of all the others.

John Battle: It is customary to congratulate the Member who wins the ballot. I have always wondered why we do that—I would rather have won the ballot myself—but I do congratulate the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) on choosing this topic. I was happy to lend my name to this brief, modest and reasonable Bill.
	The Bill calls for a bit of reverse engineering in our approach to tackling the challenge of climate change, rather than leaving everything to top-down targets without thinking about the mechanisms that are needed on the ground floor. The very first word—"enable"—is probably the most important. The Bill is intended not to tell, not to spend, not to force, but to enable. It contains another word that I hesitate to mention, the word "reasonable". I know that we can spend hours, weeks and years in this place debating what it means to be reasonable, and I hope we will not get into the semantics now, but I think that the intention in this instance is more than clear.
	We sometimes underestimate the hugeness of the challenge of climate change to our politics, our public institutions, to private business and to our personal behaviour. It covers the waterfront. Ipsos MORI recently published a review of the year which I think was sent to Members, although I was not able to lay hands on it yesterday. One of the centre-spreads featured attitudes to climate change. The general conclusion was that people in Britain now accept that there is a problem and accept that human behaviour is making a difference, which was not the case five or 10 years ago. When it comes to dealing with the problem, however, a gulf emerges. The survey exposed the fact that apart from doing a little bit of, dare I say, recycling—perhaps changing light bulbs—most of us are "armchair environmentalists". We demand that the Government do something rather than doing anything ourselves, while issuing the caveat that whatever the Government propose we will oppose, and thus we make no progress whatever. The purpose of the Bill is not to focus on the great big problem and leave it nebulous, or to ask the Government to do everything, but to concentrate on what local government can do and enable it to build in the capacity to meet its targets.
	I approved of what the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) said in his intervention. We ought to acknowledge that local authorities are getting ahead of the Government on this issue, and engage in a stronger dialogue with them about what they can achieve at ground-floor and local-community level. The aim of the Merton rule, which has been widely known and accepted for more than four years and has been copied by over 100 local authorities, is to persuade developers to obtain at least 10 per cent. of any new building energy from renewable sources.
	I know about the BedZED project, but there are quite a few other projects scattered across Britain. There are combined-heat-and-power and energy-efficiency projects, and experimental schemes initiated by architects going all the way back to Susan Rolfe's experimental house with solar panels in Oxford. Such development is patchy, however. The Bill is intended to achieve some co-ordination so that best practice can be shared, and authorities can learn about what is going on elsewhere and proceed in a positive fashion.

Nick Hurd: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (John Battle). I was left feeling that if we are to be condemned to having a Labour Energy Minister, I rather wish that it were still him. I found myself agreeing with a great deal of what he said. I join him in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) on his good fortune in the ballot, on the pithy nature of his Bill and on the punch of his argument for its Second Reading.
	I was in my hon. Friend's shoes this time last year when I proposed the Second Reading of the Sustainable Communities Bill. In essence, that Bill was about localism and its premise was that, when it came to decisions about local communities and their future, local people knew best. I am very happy to support this Bill, because the same principle is at play here today. My Bill became an Act because it had strong cross-party support and because the central Government got comfortable with the view that it went within the grain of their localism agenda. This Bill is another test of how far the Government are prepared to do down that track. It fundamentally asks, "To what degree are we prepared to stimulate ambition, innovation and diversity among local authorities?"
	This Bill sends out a very positive message out to the market. It says, "Yes, in the face of the biggest challenge that we face"—namely the transformation of our energy infrastructure—"you, local authorities, be prepared to go beyond the minimum standard that we set in the centre. Help us raise the ground floor", to use the expression of the right hon. Member for Leeds, West that I liked. The Bill sends out a challenge to the most conservative of industries—the house building industry—to go the extra yard and be more efficient in delivering renewable energy and energy efficiency at a lower cost. That freedom will be put in statute, so that the industry and the market have certainty rather than be exposed to the capriciousness of central Government and the revolving ministerial door.
	That is an extremely positive and simple message that sends a much stronger signal to the market than the message coming out of Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks suggested, after 10 years of talking about climate change, the Government have only just got round to recognising what the Stern report trumpeted loud and clear and that we have followed up in our quality of life commission—that planning and land use are fundamental tools in our collective effort to get on top of emissions.
	The Government's approach is in contrast to the Bill's simplicity. They drip out bland planning guidance that encourages action as long as it does not compromise other social objectives and that comes on top of a botched consultation on the national standards that we need. Anyone who has any doubt about that should listen to the evidence before the Environmental Audit Committee in its inquiry on sustainable homes. The Government's guidance also comes on top of the debacle on home information packs that we thrashed out many times in the Housing Bill. All that bends towards a target of zero-carbon homes by 2016, which sounds great on the airwaves but is not propped up by any credible detail or strategy for achieving or enforcing it. As the right hon. Member for Leeds, West suggested, surely by now, we have learned that simply expressing a remote target is not enough.
	The background to the Bill is fundamentally one of failure. We are failing to control our emissions. As was said by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, emissions of CO2 have risen since 1997. It is not enough for Ministers to stand at the Dispatch Box and keep talking about the Kyoto target. We know the background to it, and we know why we did well on that target. We know about its inadequacy, and about the scale of the challenge that we face in meeting the targets ahead of us. We know that we are not on top of our emissions.
	Underpinning that general macro-failure is a chronic failure as regards our renewable energy strategy. I have been invited to speak at a few renewable energy conferences held by people who are trying to make money out of the industry, to finance the industry, or to deploy the technology, and I always ask three questions: "How many of you think that the Government's renewable energy strategy is a success?", "How many of you think that the UK is the most promising market for renewable energy in Europe?", and "How many of you think that we are on track to meet our 2010 target, let alone our 2020 target?" To date, I have seen only one hand go up in answer to those three questions, and the person concerned turned out to be a consultant to the Government. When it comes to renewable energy, the Government's strategy and credibility are in tatters.
	As the hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Liberals pointed out, the reality is that we drastically under-perform in Europe when it comes to the deployment and penetration of renewable energy. The Library note mentions the figure of 4 per cent. of total gross energy; that is compared to an EU average of 14 per cent., despite our having some of the best natural resources in Europe. The failure is not just in the relatively low levels of penetration and deployment; it is in the amount of money that we have spent to achieve the little that we have achieved. Both Ofgem and the National Audit Office have been coruscating in their criticism of the Government. The simple fact is that the very limited amount of renewable energy that we produce costs British taxpayers £1.4 billion a year. The cost per tonne of CO2 abated is a staggering £110. By comparison, the average price of carbon under the EU emissions trading scheme in 2006 was about £11.50 a tonne.
	We have achieved very little at a high cost, and it is clear that we need a different approach. That is why I wholly applaud the work done by our Front Benchers, particularly the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), through our paper, "Power to the People", which takes a different approach to decentralising energy.
	The other failure that is relevant to the Bill is the failure to transform the energy efficiency of our housing stock. That is a crucial part of our collective approach to climate change, because 50 per cent. of emissions come from our buildings. When it comes to thermal performance, the UK has some of the worst housing stock in Europe. As the Liberal spokesman made clear, if we compare the dynamism and ambition of our Government to that found in Germany, it is frankly embarrassing.

Nick Hurd: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I have heard him make that point before. I think that it comes on the back of research that he has done, and it is an extremely powerful statistic. He will be aware of the frustration that is felt about the extraordinary paucity of ambition and energy shown by the Government. We have to remind ourselves that back in March 1995 the current Prime Minister announced that the Labour Government would lead a major push for energy efficiency in the home. However, as the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) will know, the Association for the Conservation of Energy said to the Environmental Audit Committee that
	"the energy efficiency industry as a whole...is extremely disappointed by the painfully slow progress towards introducing new economic instruments to improve household energy efficiency. Frankly, we are beginning to wonder whether it will ever happen".
	The background to the Bill is one of failure, and we should recognise that. There has been no shortage of rhetoric from the Government. That rhetoric has its place, particularly on the international stage, but we must get to grips with the fact that there is failure of delivery on the ground. The problem is not a shortage of initiatives. The policy landscape is very full; in fact, it is cluttered, and there is lots of stuff going on, but it is all driven by the proposition that central Government have all the answers. The penny must soon drop, and we must soon realise that the levers that central Government are pulling are not necessarily connected to anything.
	As the right hon. Member for Leeds, West suggested, we need to take a different approach. We should realise that if we are to encourage people to change their values and behaviour over economic cycles and across generations, we have to engage them in a bottom-up process, and involves them in their communities. There has been chronic failure to do so, and an opportunity has been missed. Local authorities are closer to their communities and are more trusted than central Government.
	The reality is that local authorities are not adequately engaged. They are major stakeholders in the debate. They are huge estate managers; 25 per cent. of the housing stock in this country is social housing, which is their responsibility, directly or indirectly. They are service providers, who must help us to manage waste and enforce building regulations. They are enablers, and play a role through Warm Front and the energy efficiency commitment. They ought to be standing shoulder to shoulder with central Government as partners in that collective effort, but they are not. As the National Audit Office pointed out to the Environmental Audit Committee in a 2007 report,
	"Although over 200 local authorities have made high level commitments to climate change...analysis suggests a mixed picture of performance, with few replicating the achievements of the best."
	I am struck by how often we come back to the examples of Woking and Merton in such debates—there are no other names in the frame. However, things are happening out there, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) said. I draw particular attention to Kirklees, which is enormously innovative and energetic on such issues. My council, Hillingdon, is one of the 100 authorities that are beginning to deploy some of the principles behind the Merton rule, in their own way. We need more leaders. The Bill is attractive because it sends a strong signal to the market to encourage people to lead, not through imposing targets but by giving local authorities real power. The Bill is therefore a step in the right direction.

Gregory Barker: It is a great pleasure to speak on behalf of the official Opposition in strong favour of this excellent Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon). I am pleased that it bears a striking resemblance to an amendment that I tabled to the Climate Change Bill during the last Parliament. The cause has a good history, not least that of the battle fought by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton). We recognise the efforts on both sides of the House to give statutory standing to the localist agenda at the heart of this new and badly needed legislation.
	This has been a very worthwhile and particularly good Friday morning debate. All the contributions from both sides of the House have been extremely positive and insightful, drawing on the great experience of the Members who are here. Many Members support this measure, including the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (John Battle), the hon. Members for Gower and for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), and my hon. Friends the Members for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd) and for Upminster (Angela Watkinson), who all made worthwhile and forceful contributions to the debate.
	The Bill is an excellent piece of workmanlike drafting; it does exactly what it says on the tin. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks for his brevity. In just a page, it could achieve a paradigm shift in the pursuit of climate change policy.
	Members need little reminding of the economic and human necessity of acting now to restrict the worst impacts of climate change. The latest report from the intergovernmental panel on climate change states in the strongest language yet that the scientific evidence is now overwhelming. The case for economic action now rather than later is also increasingly clear thanks to the work of Lord Stern. Yet despite the seemingly widespread acceptance of those facts across the House, the policies of this Government, while generally heading in the right direction, lack sufficient ambition and urgency and the vision that is needed to meet the scale of the global warming challenge within the time frame that we now know is necessary. The Government's record on carbon reduction and low-carbon technology deployment here in Britain is disappointing to say the least.
	Credit is due to the Government for introducing the Climate Change Bill; we look forward to working constructively with them to toughen it up when it reaches the Commons shortly. However, unless there is a clear layer of policies beneath the Bill to deliver real change in our economy, it will have been a waste of time and risks just becoming an effective way to audit our failures. On its own, it will not deliver the changes that we need to make—the dynamic industrial changes, the changes in consumer behaviour, the changes in Government policy—if we are to rise to the challenge of a low-carbon future.
	Despite three consecutive Labour manifesto promises to cut emissions by 20 per cent. by 2010, it is a matter of record that total UK carbon emissions have risen since 1997. If the Government had a record to boast of in this regard, perhaps there would be less passion and less need for my hon. Friend's Bill, but all the evidence and all our experience show that the drive and impetus for the radical changes that we need to make in the UK are coming from the bottom, not the top. In 2006, emissions fell by just 0.1 per cent., despite the great help from some of the warmest weather on record. In 2006, Labour's manifesto commitment was quietly dropped in favour of a watered down target of 15 per cent. by 2010.

Gregory Barker: The Government are pretty quick to claim credit for private sector investment when that goes up, and to claim the credit for growth in the economy; all that growth comes from the private sector. The Government have a responsibility to create an environment in which companies come forward to invest in research and development and to put in place a long-term framework. On any count, it is clear that the Government have failed to do that. That is simply because there is not the vision, the ambition or the determination to create the innovative, skills-based economy with a long-term direction that we desperately need. That is one reason why good local initiatives are so badly needed, and why the Bill deserves our full support.
	When, in 2003, Merton council took the bold step of setting a 10 per cent. target for on-site renewable generation, it helped to spark an unprecedented investment in the microgen sector. Investors felt that frameworks such as Merton could provide a long-term marketplace for the developers and manufacturers of small-scale, low-carbon technologies.
	On the path towards the zero-carbon homes target in 2016, there are stepped increases in minimum standards for public sector housing projects. In 2013, the standards jump to a 44 per cent. efficiency improvement on today's standards—or level 4 in the code for sustainable homes. That is ambitious. There is concern in the microgen sector, voiced by industry groups such as the Micropower Council, that this large increase could result in a huge increase in demand for microgeneration in a short period of time, and that unless careful thought and preparation goes into anticipating that, the industry will struggle to meet it. That is because previous minimum standards could be met through energy efficiency measures alone, whereas it believes that the 44 per cent. standard could not, which would demand that that standard is met by on-site renewables in almost all cases. Many of the manufacturers argue that at its current level the microgeneration sector could not supply that demand, and that that failure would seriously upset the 2016 zero-carbon homes target.
	Merton rules provide the longer term security for continued and sustained investment in the microgeneration sector and will allow it to match demand as standards are ratcheted up. We need that sustained growth in microgeneration. The Government's response to the Merton rule has been typically shambolic and dithering. In a written statement to the House in June of last year, the then Minister for Housing and Planning, the right hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), endorsed the rule, in what many thought was a welcome move. She said:
	"the Government expect all planning authorities to include policies in their development plans that require a percentage of the energy in new developments to come from on-site renewables"—[ Official Report, 8 June 2006; Vol. 447, c. 33WS.]
	Those were sound words.
	The statement encouraged yet more councils up and down the country to set such rules according to their local needs—dealing with on-site renewables and energy efficiency in residential and commercial properties as appropriate. Although it is still early for these schemes to be judged, the early adopters, such as Merton and Croydon, have met with considerable success, and, with no significant impact on building rates in those areas, the rules provided a lifeline to the renewables industry and began to lower the shamefully high emissions of our property stock.
	Yet, sadly, following intense lobbying from the house building sector—uneasy with change and keen to preserve its one-size-fits-all production methods—the Minister, wielding the empty threat of a slowdown in the housing market, performed a dramatic U-turn on her statement. On Tuesday 23 August, a leaked document from the Department for Communities and Local Government argued:
	"Planning authorities should...focus on local development or site specific opportunities, and avoid blanket requirements applying across extensive areas with a broad range of development proposals and circumstances."
	That clumsy U-turn did untold damage to the microgen sector, set a hare running in the press and created uncertainty, which is bad for investment and confidence, and it was broadly condemned by environmental non-governmental organisations, trade associations and environmental campaigners, as well as by many authoritative commentators.
	Therefore, when Ministers assure us that the change of heart in December's planning policy statement now supports Merton-style rules, how can we believe them? Can the innovative talents in the microgen sector now go to their investors with a straight face and say, "Don't worry; the U-turn's been U-turned and we've now got a new turn"?
	The Bill is important precisely because of this culture of uncertainty and dither that lies at the very heart of the Government. The Bill will replace dither with clear statute. Short, pithy and to the point, it will give certainty. As has been said, it is a permissive Bill; it will give new rights, not impose regulations. It will enshrine the rights of local councils to make their own proposals for renewable targets within reasonable limits in law. It will prevent the unseen hand of Whitehall choking off local initiatives. There was a brazen example of that earlier last year, when the Yorkshire and Humber development plan was scrutinised by the former Minister.
	Its onsite renewable target mysteriously disappeared.
	The Bill would protect in law the right of local councils to set targets while ensuring that they are reached through the public process of consultation on a development plan. I am sure that the Minister will claim that the planning policy statement in soon-to-be published guidance will give all councils guidelines on making the targets. How is a centralised diktat better at meeting local targets than local planning officers acting in consultation with local property owners and developers, local people and communities and locally elected councillors?

Gregory Barker: I am certainly not opposed to it in principle, although I am not familiar with the Housing and Regeneration Bill. I would be more comfortable about doing that if I really thought that a strong effort was going into prosecuting as things stand. I do not want us just to give more wriggle room. However, I hear what the Minister is saying.
	Some councils may allow developers to account for some of their target through efficiency measures and others may set independent targets for microgeneration and efficiency. There are concerns that there may be a plethora of new efficiency standards as a result of the Planning and Energy Bill, but the current wave of Merton rules has produced no such complexity. Is it clear that it is far more time-efficient for most local authorities to use existing codes, such as the Government's sustainable homes code, than to develop completely new standards from scratch. The rule also gives a welcome chance to smaller, local property developers to serve their local market. Larger developers, who have a more unwieldy, mass-produced product to adapt, might not as easily tap into such a market. We could thus use the benefits of local knowledge and of involving small entrepreneurs.
	If we are really serious about tackling climate change, every aspect of government must be prepared for dynamic change. We must also be prepared to challenge the status quo. This Government have proved that business as usual will simply not deliver the speed of transformation in our economy that we need. We must foster excellence in innovation and new technology, invest in and develop burgeoning green technologies, and we must look ahead and be far more ambitious in their deployment. Rather than pick individual technological winners centrally, or dictate from Whitehall planning guidance that is uncertain in the long term and unsuitably broad brush in its approach for the needs of localism, the Bill would allow and empower those communities who are most able—often those where land values are higher—and most willing to blaze a trail for others to follow.
	The Bill would allow the right solutions to reach the endlessly varied parts of this country and give us at least a fighting chance of reaching our 2016 zero-carbon homes target. The Government claim from time to time to back Merton-style rules. Indeed, the former Minister for Housing—now Chief Secretary to the Treasury—has called the PPS solution Merton plus. If she had been truly convinced of the importance of market certainty to developing our microgen sector and of the power and effectiveness of Merton rules, she surely would have joined us by giving local authorities the statutory right to set them.
	Before I conclude, I should like to cite the word of the president of the Royal Institute of British Architects, Jack Pringle. He has said:
	"The RIBA strongly believes that local authorities should be free to demand higher building standards than those set nationally. Individual local authorities can play a huge role in driving innovation and can themselves become beacons of sustainability. If the reports are true and this ability will be lost, that will be detrimental to the government's goal of reducing carbon emissions from buildings."
	In this time of Government dithering, business certainty is vital. This Bill has the potential to provide that in one area at least. It does exactly what it says on the tin. One would expect something crisp, sharp, pithy and non-regulatory from my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks, who is a tireless and redoubtable member of the Treasury Committee and a hammer of needless regulation and burdensome government. The Bill has also proved him to be a champion of modern localism. He has not only captured the spirit of a new political age in the Bill, but he has endeavoured to give our local communities, which are far more ambitious and more progressive than this inert Government, the power to begin the job that we will finish.

Iain Wright: I stand corrected, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	We have also talked about the code for sustainable homes. Again, this is an important point. The Housing and Regeneration Bill is in Committee. The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd), who is a member of that Committee, has to suffer my company daily. That Bill will make it mandatory for all new homes to be rated against the code for sustainable homes. The code demonstrates the overall sustainability of each new home—not just in energy efficiency, but in water use. Standards set out in the code match up with the progressively demanding building regulations that will be introduced. Code level 6 represents zero-carbon and exemplary development in energy and water efficiency.
	By making it mandatory for homes to have a sustainability rating, we are providing the information that consumers need to make informed judgments when they buy. Homes built to higher code levels, for example, are likely to have lower fuel bills, which any prospective buyer will consider important. They will move the market accordingly. Fridge ratings could form an analogy. Five or 10 years ago, people did not know what fridge ratings were, and now no one would buy a fridge or other white appliance if it was not energy rated. I think that homes will go down a similar path.
	It is not mandatory for all homes to be assessed. In some circumstances, developers will be building only to minimum building regulations and there is no need to make them pay for an unnecessary assessment. However, English Partnerships is already building at code level 3. The Housing Corporation will join it for the next affordable housing programme. That will give developers that are building mixed developments a choice about whether they want to be seen to build homes that are less sustainable than Government-funded housing programmes. They will have to consider that when they market their new homes. We are already seeing movement in the building industry to support the code. Developers can already use the code voluntarily. Berkeley Homes, for example, has already committed to building all new homes to code level 3.
	Local planning authorities are already working with developers in innovative and imaginative ways to help us to meet our house building targets and to ensure that those houses are more stable and resilient, so that they can deal with the challenges posed by climate change, such as more extreme weather and floods. We also believe that we need to develop a similar approach for non-domestic buildings, so that all new shops, offices and so on would have to be zero-carbon. The work undertaken by the UK Green Building Council suggests that it would be possible, in the right circumstances, for the majority of non-domestic buildings to be zero-carbon by 2020. We are considering those findings.
	The final element that I want to mention is the biggie: last month's planning policy statement on climate change. It has four main themes. The first is the aim to ensure that local plans have strong carbon ambitions and targets. That will fully integrate tackling climate change into all planning policy. It will ensure that councils will take such issues into account when considering the location for new developments so that they can take full advantage of local renewable and low-carbon energy opportunities. The PPS emphasises the need for delivery, accelerating action so that plans do not simply sit on shelves.
	Secondly, to pick up on a point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (John Battle) made and about which I am excited, the PPS represents a major direction that energy policy can take in the next century. It will help deliver decentralised, renewable and low-carbon energy and expect new development to incorporate local renewable and low-carbon energy when viable. In the Housing and Regeneration Bill Public Bill Committee, we are currently discussing the right to buy and the relative merits and demerits of that. It goes without saying that many communities felt empowered by that in the 1980s and 1990s. Decentralising the energy network, whereby local communities have some sort of facility to generate electricity, feed it into the national grid and be paid for it could be a modern way in which to empower new local communities and provide genuine community spirit. The PPS facilitates that.
	Many councils are already adopting policies and development plans that require a percentage of the energy in new developments to come from on-site renewables when that is viable. As has been said time and again, that is known as the Merton rule. It follows the example in 2003 of the London borough of Merton, which established a policy whereby new residential developments over a specific size were expected to incorporate renewable energy production equipment to provide at least 10 per cent. of predicted energy requirements.
	Although the idea has been somewhat derided, I believe that the PPS goes even further and embeds Merton plus rules in all councils. That means that we expect a council-wide, Merton-style rule for cutting carbon by using local renewable and low-carbon energy in new development as well as tailored targets for sites where there are bigger opportunities than the council-wide target. We do not want the average to be the height of ambition.
	The PPS will encourage new developments that limit carbon dioxide emissions, and help existing developments adopt local renewable or low-carbon energy. Moreover, the PPS confirms that there will be times when local councils should expect higher standards of building sustainability than those set nationally through building regulations. They could include, for example, areas of serious water stress, where, without the highest standard of water efficiency, the proposed development would be unacceptable.
	Thirdly, the PPS would speed up the shift to renew renewable and low-carbon energy. It expects regional targets for renewable energy in line with national targets—better, when possible. It will encourage technical innovation. If one word sums up the theme of today's debate, it is "innovation". The PPS helps innovate. It will develop decentralised, renewable energy generation networks. It is all exciting stuff, which will provide what the Bill hopes to achieve.
	Fourthly, the PPS will help create communities that are resilient to the effects of climate change. We must act to reduce the impact but also to mitigate it. The PPS will ensure that communities are fit for future climates. It especially emphasises the importance of providing public and open spaces in new developments, recognising the many benefits that green spaces provide, not only to local people but wildlife and biodiversity.
	In summary, the planning rules go much further than the Bill, which would simply enable councils to set requirements for energy generation. When councils do not take the new planning rules seriously and reflect them in their plans, they are more likely to find those plans amended or overturned.
	Let me discuss the extent of consultation on the PPS to show the depth of support for its approach, in contrast with the limited endorsement that the Bill received. The draft PPS was first published for consultation more than a year ago. It closed in March 2007 and we received more than 300 responses. A range of organisations responded to the consultation, including 11 developers, 158 local planning authorities, 22 regional planning organisations, 39 non-governmental organisations, 38 professional bodies and 12 quasi-governmental organisations such as the Carbon Trust.
	Consultation responses showed strong support for the PPS and made clear the value of using planning positively to help shape and deliver places with lower carbon emissions that are resilient to the impact of climate change. More than 200 consultees agreed that the proposed climate change PPS, as part of the Department's wider package of action, including the 2016 zero-carbon homes policy, would secure planning strategies that deliver reductions in emissions and help shape sustainable communities that are resilient to the extent of climate change, which is accepted as inevitable.
	The consultation also sought views on the proposal that local planning authorities should ensure that a significant proportion of the energy supply of substantial new development is gained on site, renewably and/or from a decentralised renewable or low-carbon energy supply. That approach was supported by 169 respondents; only 21 disagreed. There is, therefore, a range of support for our approach.
	Let me deal with the Bill. It would enable a local planning authority to specify for any development in its area: the generation of energy from renewable sources as part of the proposed development; the generation of low-carbon energy as part of the proposed development, and an energy efficiency standard in all, part or parts of a proposed development that exceeds any required by national building regulations.
	My interpretation of the Bill, which the hon. Member for Sevenoaks reinforced in his opening speech, is that its purpose is to promote the Merton rule. As I said, the PPS promotes Merton plus—and more. I want to make it clear that I disagree with the fundamentals of the Bill simply because it is impractical and ineffective. We therefore reject the means rather than the end.
	The approach in the PPS means that councils need to examine the best options in their areas, which could mean on-site renewables or local low-carbon energy like CHP. It would not be sensible to specify rigidly the right solution for each development or to predict the most effective technology in the coming years. The pace of change in technology and research and development is too fast. For that reason, we do not want councils to insist on on-site renewables if there are better ways of cutting carbon from local energy.
	Insisting on an on-site definition may be a barrier to local renewables. That is because a new housing development could get more power from a medium-sized wind turbine on a nearby hill or verge, rather than from one for every individual house in the development. A site near a power plant could utilise its surplus heat with a combined heat and power generator. A medium-sized wind turbine or a combined heat and power plant may not be feasible within many individual development sites but could provide the most cost-effective way of cutting carbon and be located locally and close to the development—perhaps on a highway verge or other open space.
	Experience suggests local policies are most effective if they include elements of both on-site and near-site generation and do not rule out, for example, low-carbon CHP such as that in Woking, or medium-sized wind turbines serving a whole development.
	I strongly believe that councils could set targets for decentralised renewable energy if the evidence suggests that that is sensible. However, the overall approach should promote and encourage renewable and low-carbon energy generation but not dictate or prescribe the solution for every area. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks made that precise point. That will become increasingly important as we work towards our zero-carbon homes target and our similar ambitions for zero-carbon new non-domestic buildings.
	Evidence increasingly suggests that it would be impractical and not cost-effective if every development specified on-site, rather than near-site, renewable energy. For example, Element Energy, in its recent work for the Renewables Advisory Board on the potential contribution of renewables to the zero-carbon homes policy, recommends that
	"local offsite generation is encouraged".
	It advises that it is important that
	"larger scale CHP and district heating is culturally and commercially attractive in the UK since it offers a relatively cheap route to compliance".
	Similarly, the work that we commissioned from the UK Green Building Council on energy efficiency in new non-domestic buildings also underlines the importance of local energy solutions in moving to zero-carbon new buildings, and highlights the planning system's key role in making that happen. The council says,
	"planning by local planning authorities therefore needs to incorporate energy planning, undertaking heat mapping and community renewable potential in order to assign the best near-site solutions in terms of carbon reduction and maximising the use of resources."
	We have therefore specifically rejected using primary legislation for the type of provisions proposed in the hon. Gentleman's private Member's Bill, because of the difficulties in keeping it up to date and responsive to fast-moving and changing circumstances. We need policy to keep up with the rapid advances in technology. With the greatest of respect, I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it would be somewhat cumbersome and time-consuming if that meant amending primary legislation time and again. If, for example, we needed to tighten the requirements on renewables but not on low-carbon energy, it would be far easier to amend the PPS than primary legislation. That is why the PPS is the right place to set out the detail.
	Because the Bill is a somewhat blunt instrument, it has the potential to undermine the progress towards the zero carbon target, through a series of counter-productive consequences. I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, and that is clearly not his intention, but it could be the effect. First, the Bill does not replicate the safeguards within the PPS. Those safeguards will ensure that environmental standards are raised in a sensible way, so that we can continue to deliver the necessary levels of new housing at the same time. Whatever requirements councils set need to be tested publicly as part of the planning process and need to be compatible with delivering housing targets and affordable homes. The Bill does not have the same safeguards. It requires councils only to set targets that are "reasonable", but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West said, we could talk for hours—indeed, I am tempted to do so—about what is "reasonable". As a result, the Bill could undermine our targets to deliver much-needed affordable housing.
	Secondly, the Bill could rule out, for example, more cost-effective local but near-site energy solutions, by stipulating just on-site renewables or just low-carbon energy. That excludes local community energy schemes. We recognise that the industry producing solar panels and small scale wind turbines has been arguing strongly for such an exclusive approach. However, we believe that councils should not set rules that deter developers from connecting new developments directly to a local community renewable scheme. That is why the planning rules are clear that councils should consider near-site energy generation as well as on-site generation. By "near-site" we mean in the local area and dedicated to serving, or serving via a wider energy network, the development concerned, not a site many miles away, such as in Orkney.
	Thirdly, the Bill would enable councils to set their own energy efficiency standards. That would effectively allow every council to set their own building regulations, which, as the Minister responsible for building regulations, I believe would cause huge problems for the delivery of new zero-carbon technologies and the delivery of housing. That would not be workable and would be a nightmare for industry to adapt to, which is why the proposal is not feasible. If house builders have to meet hundreds of different types of standards across the country, that will prevent the economies of scale, which have been mentioned, that are desperately needed in the industry for building zero-carbon homes, make it much harder for house builders to deliver the homes that we need and reduce competition, by making it harder for house builders to cross boundaries into areas that require different building techniques.
	There is therefore a risk that the Bill would distort investment in research and development, and technologies, and could disrupt the orderly development of supply chains for the delivery of zero-carbon homes. I do not think that that is what the hon. Member for Sevenoaks wants. Instead, the Government's current framework will increase national standards substantially and clearly, in 2010 and 2013, and fully reach zero carbon by 2016, so all builders will have to meet higher standards and the construction industry can benefit from economies of scale and, importantly, plan for that zero carbon target.
	The enabling provision on energy efficiency could set different standards for different parts of the same development, which could encourage the fragmentation of building standards. We are keen to avoid that, as it would be add odds with the approach set out in the PPS, which encourages councils to go for a higher code level for specific sites and where there are particular, demonstrable circumstances to justify such action. It is important to note that, while different councils might be working to different standards, they are all standards on the same scale, set out in the code for sustainable homes, rather than each council adopting an entirely different approach, as the Bill would permit.
	The House will be pleased to hear that I am now reaching my conclusion. I again welcome the spirit of the Bill and commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing it to the House. But what our green and growing economy needs is an evidence-based and comprehensive green strategy, not a green fig leaf that dies quickly when this season's fashion ends. We need practical, local proposals that capture the support of the wide range of organisations that we need to work with to realise our shared ambitions, not the unrealistic dreams of one particular lobby group. We need a flexible approach that can respond to advances in technology and changes in demand, not a legislative straitjacket that would leave us unable to swim on as the water rises. This is what the current legislative programme offers and, importantly, what the PPS provides, but it is what the Bill would fail to deliver. That is why I do not believe that we should give it a Second Reading.

Peter Bottomley: Environmentalists in and around Worthing and District will understand the points that the hon. Gentleman is making. Although the greatest threat exists on the northern costs of Great Britain, when a large amount of timber floated ashore in Worthing from the Ice Princess we were well aware of what would have happened had there been 2,000 tonnes of oil floating around the seas and the Solent. Timber does much less damage. The hon. Gentleman will receive considerable support from the south coast as well.

Mark Lazarowicz: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support. It is true that some of the worst disasters involving pollution have happened off the south coast. Most of us will remember the Torrey Canyon, and there have been other incidents along the south coast in recent years.
	In seeking regulation, I do not seek to prohibit or regulate what are known as emergency transfers which take place when it is essential to move oil from one vessel to another. I am talking about general practice and general trading operations.
	As the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) reminded us, there is concern about the transfer of oil at sea precisely because many parts of this country are blessed with beautiful coastlines that are of major importance to the communities that live along them. They are important not only for the natural environment in itself, but for the support that the natural environment brings to local communities in terms of tourism, recreation and other economic activities. I mentioned the Torrey Canyon, but there have been other episodes in recent years off the south coast of England. Indeed, as hon. Members are well aware, the oil spill from the Erika off the west coast of France also had consequences for the UK.
	As a Member representing a constituency in Scotland, I can point to the beauty of Scotland's seas that are home to 45 per cent. of the breeding seabirds in the entire European Union. Those seas are of European significance and, in that regard, I should put on record the support that I have received from the staff at the Scottish Seabird Centre in North Berwick who have helped to publicise the issues behind the Bill and the campaign. I strongly recommend to anyone who has not visited the centre that they should do so. It is a good example in showing how important the welfare of the natural environment is for the protection of our most vulnerable marine species. The firth of Forth alone is home to about 300,000 seabirds and the seas around Scotland contain a wide variety of species, from basking sharks to rare coldwater corals. As I have suggested, that wildlife brings great financial benefits to our coastal communities. It is in everyone's interests that the marine environment is managed sustainably to allow us to reap the benefit of healthy, productive and diverse seas and coasts.

Mark Lazarowicz: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising an important point. As a Member representing a coastal constituency, I also represent a port, although one that is not as busy as it once was. I am equally interested in ensuring that there is a healthy and vibrant marine industry. Although there has been widespread publicity for my Bill in some of the specialist press and media dealing with the marine industry, it is interesting that, as far as I am aware, no one from the industry, apart from one individual, who is opposed to the Bill, has contacted me. On the other hand, many organisations—obviously primarily from the environment and community side—have contacted me to support it. I emphasise that I certainly do not want to do anything that would undermine the shipping industry. As I hope to assure the hon. Gentleman later, the Bill would provide for the industry a bit of a—level playing field is an unfortunate analogy for things at sea—level regime that would benefit it in some respects. Part of the concern is that the oil may come from countries whose regimes for marine safety are not as good as ours, and that is why it is in the interests of this country to have a high-quality regime that applies to all. Although I have particular concern for my area, the issues are of concern throughout the entire UK—along the south coast of England, and in Devon, Cornwall, Wales and many other areas.
	Ship-to-ship transfers take place in the Scapa Flow and there are active proposals for cargo transport operations in at least two other UK harbour locations—the firth of Forth and Falmouth. I believe that the proposal in Falmouth has been quite controversial, but I am not as fully aware of the situation there as that in the firth of Forth.
	It should be emphasised that often no independent authorisation or consent is required to set up an oil-handling operation. It depends on local regulations; sometimes local legislation is in place. A wide range of regimes apply in the UK. I see the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), expressing doubt about that, but varied regimes and regulations apply; they are certainly not entirely consistent across the UK. My Bill aims to ensure consistency.
	The primary objective of my Bill is to ensure that the standards that currently apply to ship-to-shore transfers, which are carefully regulated, also apply to ship-to-ship cargo transfers. We should not expect lower standards of environmental protection for transfers that take place at sea than for oil transfers from ship to shore. The issue is complex, but my understanding is that transfers at sea are regulated in a fairly piecemeal fashion, and that national rules and guidelines apply only in limited ways; however, I will not go into that in great detail. That is the background to my proposal.
	The situation is slightly different in Scotland. Last June, as a result of concern about proposals in the firth of Forth, the Scottish Parliament put forward regulations relating to the habitats directive, with all-party support. The regulations give Scottish Ministers power to intervene to ensure that any transfers agreed by a competent authority are consistent with the EU habitats directive. However, as I understand it, the regulations cannot apply to ship-to-ship transfers outside the control of the competent authorities, and of course as they are made under the habitats directive, they apply only to areas that are designated under the birds and habitats directives. If a transfer is proposed in an area that is not yet classified under the directives, or that is of tourist significance but is not considered as falling within the terms of the birds and habitats directives, the regulations agreed in Scotland do not apply, even in Scotland.
	To come to the crux of the matter, my Bill would place a requirement on the Government to introduce regulations under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 to control ship-to-ship transfers. The Government currently have powers to introduce such regulations, and indeed draft regulations were produced in 1999. There has been discussion about such regulations over the years, but they have not appeared. My Bill would replace the power with a requirement on Government to bring forward regulations. I have set out various criteria that have to be borne in mind, but clearly once regulations are brought forward, there will be a consultation on the details. Basically, I am trying to move the Government forward from simply having a power that they have not yet exercised to bringing forward regulations.
	My Bill sets out a number of principles that the Secretary of State will be required to take into account when introducing regulations. I shall mention them briefly; I do not want to take up too much of the House's time, as I know that there are other Bills to be discussed today. My Bill would require the Secretary of State to prohibit cargo transfers of oil and oil products in UK waters, except within statutory harbour authority areas, where the anti-pollution measures should be better than on the open seas. The Secretary of State would be required to consider a transfer, or programme of transfers, to be an "oil handling facility". He would also be required to ensure that such transfers were considered to be a plan or project under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, Etc.) Regulations 1994.
	The Bill would also require the Secretary of State to consider various aspects of the environmental impact assessment regulations, and it would exempt emergency transfers from its provisions.

Julian Brazier: I am delighted to speak on this Bill, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) on securing this slot and introducing it. The Opposition very much appreciate the intentions behind it and the considerable amount of work that has gone into drafting it. The timing is good, as it gives us an opportunity to consider the effects of man on our marine life and the birds that make Britain's coasts their primary habitat. It also gives us an opportunity to think about the importance of shipping and the fact that it is easily the least carbon-intensive way of moving goods around the world, and to try to think of ways we can make that industry safer for the environment.
	The protection of our coastline and the wildlife that lives on it will be a most important concern for the next Conservative Government. We all know the damage that can be wrought when things go wrong at sea. An island, by its very nature, is vulnerable to oil spillages. I remember most acutely the Braer disaster off Shetland and the Sea Empress at Milford Haven, as, I am sure, do other hon. Members. The cost of those has been estimated at $83 million and $62 million respectively, according to figures from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. More importantly, they left tens of thousands of birds dying in the slicks and ruined hundreds of miles of coastline for a very long period. Fortunately, oil spills are now very rare. Nevertheless, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith made it clear why we are likely to see an increase in oil trade around Scotland and the north of our country, with the shift towards Russia as an increasingly important oil producer and supplier to the UK.
	The need to preserve areas of outstanding beauty or environmental significance from the threat of oil pollution is very great. Indeed, the last time I debated oil pollution in this Chamber, I led Opposition demands for the Government to introduce, after a 13-year delay, provisions for marine high-risk areas. I am pleased to say that not long after that the Government did at last use the powers to create such no-go areas for ships on some of the most sensitive parts of our coastline. The Bill is not in quite the same league, because it deals only with transfers of oil, not huge potential oil slicks, but it raises an important issue and the hon. Gentleman is right to have put it on to the House's agenda. As far as I am able to discover, we have never had in the UK a single spillage from a ship-to-ship transfer in our waters, and the level of incidents worldwide is very small. In the past 10 years, the largest single incident of ship-to-ship oil spillage involved only six barrels, although it would not have been nice to be on a nearby section of coastline. Worldwide, the average annual spillage is about eight barrels of oil per annum.
	However, even the smallest oil slick can cause significant damage along a sensitive piece of coastline—not only to bird-life but to the coastline itself. It is sensible that, as the Bill proposes, the Secretary of State should have the power to determine where such transfers occur. By limiting these practices to areas where the Secretary of State is certain they will cause limited damage, the Bill would remove much of the concern about such transfers. In calling for ships engaging in transfers of oil to be considered "an oil handling facility", the Bill would in effect demand that shipping companies prepare oil pollution emergency plans. I understand that in practice that usually happens anyway, but when it does not, it should, and it is thoroughly sensible to put that requirement on a statutory footing. Enshrining the circumstances necessary for an environmental impact statement to be required, as laid out in the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007, would also provide greater clarity in the law, which should be welcomed in all parts of the House.
	However, my hon. Friends and I have serious concerns about one aspect of the Bill. It insists that each ship-to-ship transfer be treated as a "plan or project" under the habitats directive. We believe that that would place a disproportionate burden on the industry. Before explaining why we believe that, I wish to remind the House of the importance of the industry, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned in the context of his constituency. We in this country should be proud of this industry, and the entire House should support it. Measured by weight, 95 per cent. of all goods that come to this country come by sea—from the toy reindeer around the Santa grotto, to the paddling pools in the summer, to the footballs used in the premiership. The industry has an annual turnover of £40 billion if all the ancillary industries are included, and it contributed £11 billion to GDP last year alone.
	We should also support the industry because it is by far the greenest form of transport. The figures speak for themselves. Per tonne-kilometre, an articulated lorry emits 130 g of CO2 whereas a medium-sized cargo vessel on a short sea voyage pumps out less than a quarter of that. There are similar such startling differences in respect of other gases. A truck produces more than 0.8 g of NOx per tonne-kilometre, whereas a ship emits barely a half a gram. There is no doubt that the more goods are moved by sea—rather than by lorry and then over a channel crossing or, worse still, by air—the better it is for the environment. That does not mean that the shipping industry does not need to clean up parts of its act; it does, especially with regard to sulphur and nitrogen oxide emissions. What it does mean, however, is that we ought to encourage the use of shipping where it does not directly cause damage to the environment, because shipping is by far the greenest form of transport.
	That brings me directly back to the problem we have with the one provision I have mentioned. We and the industry believe that the application of the habitats directive in the way the Bill proposes would result in ship-to-ship transfers being ruled out almost altogether. In supporting the Bill, the RSPB made it clear that that was not its intention, and the hon. Gentleman has also made that clear several times in his speech—at the beginning, the middle and the end—but I want to explain why we think that that would be the effect.
	The United Kingdom Major Ports Group conducted a study of the impact of the habitats directive on dredging, which it was concerned about. We must bear in mind the fact that dredging is an activity that usually takes place over weeks, rather than being over in an hour or two. Let me quote from that study:
	"There is a complex regime of controls governing any proposed 'plan or project' which is likely to have a significant effect on the site. There is a requirement for an 'appropriate assessment' and if the assessment indicates that the project will adversely affect the integrity of the site, the project may only go ahead if it is considered to be necessary for 'imperative reasons of overriding public interest' and if there are no alternatives. In such circumstances compensatory measures are required. (Article 6(3) and (4))."
	One can immediately see why that could be a problem for dredging, and particularly maintenance dredging, which some ports regularly require in order to be kept open. If that is a problem for applications for each instance of dredging, which takes place over at least days and normally weeks, one can imagine how much of a problem it would be for an activity that happens over a period of a few hours—perhaps over a weekend or during a public holiday. It would virtually prevent it.
	We must consider another environmental dimension, which deals with the matter from another angle. Ship-to-ship transfers are sometimes environmentally necessary. The European Union has forbidden the use of so-called dirty oil—oil that has high sulphur emissions—in the English channel and the North sea. Such emissions often also carry particulates, which have genuine implications for public health. Interestingly, that is the case only if the particulates occur within a couple of hundred miles of land; particulates are not a problem out in the middle of our oceans because they do not spread over unlimited distances, unlike greenhouses gases which simply go upwards. Particulates are a problem around coastlines, and the EU has rightly chosen to adopt a higher standard for ships in such areas than the International Maritime Organisation requires of ships on the high seas.
	For that reason, many ships need to take on low-sulphur oil when they are approaching UK waters. That requires the use of ship-to-ship oil transfers for solid environmental reasons—I am certain that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith, the Government and all other Members of the House fully support that. In the long run, we all hope that the IMO will raise its game to the level of the European Union. Although some of the problems do not arise on the high seas, they certainly apply to such countries as China, from which these vessels are mostly leaving. That is a matter for the long term. In the meantime, there is an immediate requirement for such ships to carry out these transfers as they approach the UK coastline.
	I envisage the hon. Gentleman referring in his summing up to the fact that nothing in the Bill will interfere with emergency transfers, so I should make it clear that the transfers I am discussing are not emergency transfers. They are statutorily required transfers, but they are not emergency transfers. They would be covered by this burdensome provision, so the demand that each ship-to-ship transfer be treated as a "plan or project" raises the prospect of an inquiry in respect of every such transfer. If the hon. Gentleman were willing to have discussions with the industry or to receive a Government briefing—although I should not anticipate what the Minister is going to say—I am sure he would subsequently agree that that one provision in the Bill needs serious redrafting or, perhaps, eliminating.
	Nevertheless, the Bill as a whole has excellent intentions. It outlines some sensible ideas for tackling a matter that has not yet been a problem, but which, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, could be one in the future, given the growth in trade from an unfamiliar direction of the sort that has been described. He is right to have brought the Bill before the House. Should it go to Committee, the Opposition will seek to amend the offending provision in the way I have mentioned, if the Government do not table amendments. This is a good Bill that contains some excellent ideas. It addresses a genuine area of public concern, and we support its receiving a Second Reading by the House.

Mark Lazarowicz: On the hon. Gentleman's point about there having been no such incidents so far, I am sure that he would agree that if one did occur, it would not be like a car accident, which can sometimes be fairly minor; rather, it could be very serious indeed. The point is that there has been a change in the trading patterns that makes the kind of eventuality about which we are so concerned more possible.

Philip Davies: We have had a useful and constructive debate, which has also been interesting, if slightly curtailed. First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) on introducing the Bill. As we have all acknowledged, it contains very useful provisions and we should all agree with the sentiments behind it. We should all want to protect the coastline and wildlife of the United Kingdom, which helps to make our country such a special place.
	We seem to have got ourselves into a division here in that the Bill is perceived as providing a choice between either protecting our environment and wildlife or wrecking the shipping industry. There seems to be a danger of understanding the Bill as if it goes down either that line or the other. What has emerged from our debate, however, and particularly from my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier)—if I may be allowed to sing his praises—is that the Bill is capable of combining the two, so that we can protect our environment and wild life while also looking after the best interests of our shipping industry. Having heard all the contributions, I believe that we all want to see that.
	My former colleague—and political hero—Eric Forth might have started off by saying that, given that we have not had an oil spillage from a ship-to-ship transfer in UK waters, the Bill was a solution looking for a problem, and that we should not regulate when there did not seem to be a problem. Equally it is nice, for a change, for politicians to come forward with proposals to prevent a problem from happening. Far too often in the political process, we wait for some great problem to happen and then rush into a knee-jerk reaction to try to solve it. Usually, that leads to bad law and laws with unintended consequences. It is refreshing that the hon. Gentleman has brought forward a Bill that will address what we can all see is a potential problem before a major problem actually occurs on our coastline.

Julian Brazier: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but the context for the problem is the new one of large numbers of transfers in the firth of Forth. When I made the point that there had been no actual spillages, to which he alluded, it was in a context in which there was less prospect of actual spillages. That has changed, which is the reason for the Bill.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The consequences of any kind of oil spillage would be far-reaching for our country. He is right that particular coastlines, the people who live along them, and any tourist industry that depends on people visiting those places would be adversely affected. The country has a large interest in dealing with this problem.
	I do not wish to pre-empt the Minister's comments, but I would be very nervous if he were to start urging the hon. Gentleman to trust the Government, not to bother with the Bill, which is all very nice, and to leave it to them to come back with something a little better. We have heard all that before. The Government are for ever saying, "Leave it with us; we will come forward with some even better proposals if you will just give us the benefit of the doubt." Time after time, we get such warm words and assurances, and yet nothing seems to come from the Government. I hope that the Minister will not take that line, as he might find that many of us are sceptical about such assurances. If he does, I hope that the Government really intend to bring forward proper proposals, rather than just to get over a particular hurdle on a particular day, and to kick something into the long grass. People's hopes are raised by the promise of some action and then dashed when it does not happen. That damages not just the Government's reputation but that of all Members.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury was right to emphasise the importance of the shipping industry to the UK economy. I was struck by some of the figures that he quoted: about 95 per cent. of the country's international freight movements by tonnage, and 75 per cent. by value, are moved through our ports each year. That is a considerable part of our economy.
	It would be absolute folly to do anything that might damage the industry. As my hon. Friend pointed out forcefully, shipping is very good for the environment. Surely we do not wish to do anything that would make moving goods by ship a less attractive option. Indeed, we should encourage it. I should be very nervous if any aspect of the Bill had the unintended consequence of persuading people to move their goods by plane, for instance, because that would be much worse for the environment.

Julian Brazier: I have agreed with everything that my hon. Friend has said until now. I did not quite say that shipping was very good for the environment. I said that given that goods are being moved, it was far the least environmentally damaging method of moving them—much less damaging than, say, bringing them most of the way by lorry and then across the channel, or, much worse, transporting them by air.

Nigel Evans: I assure the Minister, who happens to be my Member of Parliament when I am living in London, that I, too, want to listen to what he has to say, but I want to make a short contribution first. I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) on his success in the private Members' Bills ballot. I have introduced a number of private Members' Bills in my time. In my 15 years as an MP, I have been very successful in the ballot, but sadly I have not been as lucky with the national lottery. None the less, I am hopeful about that, too. One of my Bills actually had Government support and was put on the statute book. I hope that he finds himself in a similar position: I hope that the Government want to introduce the measure, and that he will therefore be given all the support that he needs to ensure that the Bill becomes an effective Act.
	When my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) mentioned not having any coast in his constituency, it reminded me that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I were born, or at least spent a considerable time, in Swansea, which has a beautiful coastline in the Gower area. It is a superb part of the United Kingdom. As has been said, the issue is not just shipping and related business in those parts of the UK of which we have fond memories; there is also tourism. An enormous number of tourists are attracted to coastal towns. Sadly, some of our major coastal towns are not faring as well as we might wish. One can only begin to think of what the impact would be on those areas of a massive ship-to-ship oil spill; there would be enormous consequences for wildlife and the beauty of the coastline. It is important that we do what we can to protect it.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley asked, why should we wait until there is a major disaster before introducing regulations that will help to prevent that disaster? When I write to a county council and say that there ought to be traffic lights or a zebra crossing somewhere, it looks at the statistics and says, "Too few people have been killed on that stretch of the road to warrant us taking those measures." I am exasperated by that. Why should we wait for a disaster before something is corrected, if we know that there is a blackspot, or a problem waiting to happen? The same principle applies to the Bill. We recognise that an enormous amount of shipping takes place around, in and out of the United Kingdom, and we hope that it is all done according to best practice, but we do not want to allow the possibility of a spillage, which would have an enormous impact, for want of the Bill and its regulations.
	I looked through some statistics before I came to make my speech. The enormous amount of freight carried by ship in UK waters surprised me. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), I am delighted that the vast majority of freight is transported that way. We want a healthy and vibrant merchant shipping industry in this country; shipping has stood us in good stead for a considerable number of years. Some 388 million tonnes of international freight moved through UK ports in 1999, the last year for which I have figures; that represents 95 per cent. of the total. Environmentally, shipping is the best way of transporting goods throughout the world.
	The sad decline of manufacturing industry in our country means that we are importing more than ever before, from countries in Asia and elsewhere. In China, I have seen docks in which containers have been stacked up very high and ships have been in their bays ready to come to the United Kingdom. It is right that we recognise the importance of shipping into the UK and that the right regulations should be in place to ensure that oil transfers are done in the best way.
	When accidents happen, I have always believed in the "polluter pays" principle. Using current regulations, we might well be able to ensure that those responsible for environmental damage paid for it. However, irrespective of how much money we were talking about, we could not correct the damage done to wildlife. That is immeasurable. We could take action in some respects, but we want to protect our wildlife from such impacts, for which no money could properly compensate.
	I am delighted that the RSPB has supported and got behind the Bill. I have received a briefing from the organisation, which has more than 1 million members—about 1,500 per constituency. If we care about wildlife and the preservation of the bird species in the United Kingdom, we have to do something about those very things. If our constituencies do not have coastlines or ports that matters little: we have a wider responsibility for UK ports and how shipping uses them.
	That brings me to the wider argument that I mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin). I do not want British shipping to be subject to burdensome extra costs or costs that are not met by shipping in other countries, but I said that I felt a sort of ownership of the coastline around the UK, even though I represent Ribble Valley, which is inland—and long may that remain the case. I also believe that we have some sort of ownership of the wildlife in the whole world. I want to do what I can to ensure that the environment is properly protected.
	When we go to schools, we find that youngsters may not be so interested in party politics and that they scratch their heads in working out how they are relevant to them. But my goodness—when we ask our youngsters about the issues they are interested in, they are keen to say that they want the Government to do what they can to protect wildlife.

Nigel Evans: I have just found out from my hon. Friend that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) is an expert on birds and their migratory patterns.
	I hope that the Minister can comment on the international discussions that he has had, not only with our neighbours but more widely. We have seen the effect that such discussions can have on whaling—obviously, that activity does not take place on our shores—in that as soon as the Japanese announced that they were resuming whaling, although under the guise of scientific research, which we all know to be rubbish, there was an outcry. The Minister and his Government have been very proactive in trying to stop the Japanese from doing that. I therefore assume that they have also been proactive on a wider scale about ship-to-ship transfers of oil throughout the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge made a valid point about birds, which may well come to our shores from other parts of the world. The fact that something happens in a part of the world that is not our legislative responsibility does not mean that the Minister cannot have in-depth talks with his fellow Ministers about what we can do to raise standards throughout the world.
	As I said, 388 million tonnes of freight a year comes into the UK. That is a staggering amount. One can only imagine, therefore, what is happening worldwide in terms of the number of ship-to-ship transfers of oil that are taking place. I am sorry to say that I was not here for the opening speech by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith, but I will read it. He may have said whether his Bill reflects best practice that is already occurring somewhere else or tries to break the mould by introducing legislation that is not in effect in other parts of the world. If it is the latter, I hope that it will be looked at by other countries throughout the world with huge amounts of shipping, such as Asia, particularly Singapore, China, South Africa, South America and the United States.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster that the provisions would have X costs for the industry and that that could make us less competitive with some of our near neighbours. However, we have to put the wildlife first. We must take common-sense measures and then look for the unintended consequences, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley said. Having legislated in good faith, we must ensure that we do not put such heavy burdens on our own shipping that it has the unintended consequence of making our merchant shipping uncompetitive with the rest of the EU. France is a near neighbour—we share the channel—and very heavy shipping takes place between the UK and Amsterdam. I hope that the Minister can comment on the discussions that he has had on the costs to industry.
	Several Members have mentioned clause 1(2)(c), which could have unintended consequences whereby hardly any transfers can take place at all. The Bill is not intended to stop ship-to-ship transfers of oil but to make them safer. Unintended things may happen in any event, but we must try to make the process safer where we can. Subsection (2)(c) is a problem, whether because of the legalese or because something has not been properly considered. It is important that we get the Bill into Committee so that we can discuss that in detail, sort it out and get the Bill on to the statute book in the most workable shape.
	I am delighted to give my support to this necessary Bill and again congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith. We have to be lucky to win in a private Member's Bill draw, and then be even luckier, and have the good will of the Government, to get such a Bill on the statute book. I have spoken on a number of Fridays over the past 15 years, and I must say that I miss Eric Forth. He was one of the great Conservative Members of Parliament and a great parliamentarian. His frostiness and resistance on a Friday to the vast majority of Private Members' Bills was well known—he was probably singly responsible for stopping most of them—but I hope that even he would have seen the rightness of the measures proposed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I join the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) on his success in the ballots and on introducing the Bill. I am aware that there is considerable concern among Members about the prospect of large-scale transfers of oil between ships in United Kingdom waters.
	I welcome the contributions made in the debate. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) spoke in support of the Bill and rightly acknowledged the role that shipping plays in our daily lives and in the economy. The industry rarely gets the acknowledgement it deserves, and I fully agree with his tribute to it. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) also spoke in support, but from a position of greater authority and with greater knowledge of the procedures involved, given that Scapa Flow is in his constituency. The hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) spoke in favour of the Bill, too, and raised environmental concerns that we all share. I am not sure that I fully agree with the hon. Member for Ribble Valley that it was a powerful speech, but it was certainly thoughtful—and geographical.
	The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) demonstrated a degree of scepticism—ordinary UK scepticism, not the other variety for which he has a reputation—about the Government's intentions and only time will tell if he has reason for that. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley, my part-time constituent who hails from the land-locked perch of Ribble Valley, also referred to the significance of shipping but said that we must have due regard for the protection of wildlife as well. I can assure him that we are working internationally on all such issues. We are also very conscious of the impact my hon. Friend's Bill might have on shipping, and Members would not want to do anything to damage that important industry.
	The United Kingdom has a highly successful record in maritime safety and the prevention of pollution, and we appreciate the importance of both issues. In particular, we have a highly developed strategic approach to protecting the UK's seas and coasts from ship-source pollution, which involves all of the following steps and measures. We have put in place a network of shore-based stations around the UK coastline to monitor vessel traffic, using automatic identification system technology. We achieve agreement in the forum of the International Maritime Organisation on ships' routing measures which will reduce the risk of groundings or collisions. We ensure that powerful tug boats—commonly referred to as "emergency towing vessels"—are available, so that they can go out and assist ships which lose motive power. We have established arrangements under which a ship that requires assistance, and whose condition needs to be stabilised, can be brought into a place of refuge. We have a highly effective structure for command and control of an incident, in which the Secretary of State's representative for maritime salvage and intervention—SOSREP—plays a major role. We have a fully developed national contingency plan, consistent with the 1990 international convention on oil pollution preparedness, response and co-operation—the OPRC convention. We participate actively in international assistance and co-operation arrangements of a bipartite, multipartite or regional nature—again consistent with the OPRC convention.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. The matter occurred to me when he was making his remarks about the tug companies' proposals on staffing levels and so on. They will obviously want to examine the new regulations as part of their review of operations, to ensure that they are not in any way, shape or form being compromised in respect of the proposals that they put to the unions. I expect him to beat a path to our door if either the companies or the unions have strong points of view that they want to put directly, besides putting them through the usual channels of the consultative arrangements.
	The Department for Transport and its predecessors have been working with relevant regulations for some time, and they were referred to in Lord Donaldson's landmark report "Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas", which was published in 1994. In 1999, a draft set of regulations and an accompanying draft merchant shipping notice were produced, based on the premise that ship-to-ship oil transfers would be permitted only in two places outside harbour authority areas, these being Lyme bay and Southwold. However, those 1999 regulations were never made or laid before Parliament because of a potential conflict with another recommendation of "Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas": the proposed development of marine environmental high risk areas, or MEHRAs, in locations where there is both high environmental sensitivity and risk from shipping.
	We were aware that some of the proposed permitted ship-to-ship transfer areas might also score highly enough to become MEHRAs, and that that would have sent mixed messages in terms of environmental protection. It was anticipated that the process of identifying MEHRAs would be concluded swiftly and therefore the ship-to-ship transfer regulations were put on hold. Nevertheless, in the interim, the 1999 draft regulations and merchant shipping notice have served as the basis for non-statutory arrangements and procedures under which ship owners and operators are expected to notify the Maritime and Coastguard Agency of the intention to carry out a ship-to-ship oil transfer, and to carry out such transfers according to best practice.

Jim Fitzpatrick: Obviously, any regulations that affect different Departments have to be subject to consultation and joint clearance. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are almost ready to bring forward the regulations for consultation. We have cleared the hurdles up to the last point, and we do not expect any delays as a result of representations from other Departments. We shall proceed as I have outlined, and I hope that that offers him the reassurance he seeks.
	Although there have been many delays in the further development of the regulations, they are now very near completion and I expect a revised set of draft regulations to go out to public consultation this spring. As I have said, the Bill would first place a duty on the Secretary of State to lay regulations before Parliament for approval before the end of 2008. This change to the 1995 Act is unnecessary, as we plan to consult on our regulations much earlier this year and so aim to lay them before Parliament in the summer. Working with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith would only delay this process.
	As I have already mentioned, the Bill would place a duty on the Secretary of State to "observe" certain "principles" in regulating ship-to-ship oil transfers, although on closer inspection all but one of these "principles" prove to be a duty to regulate in a particular way. Again, we consider this to be unnecessary and inappropriate, as the legislation referred to in the Bill either already applies and achieves what appear to be my hon. Friend's objectives—as in the case of the habitats regulations—or is not suitable to apply to ship-to-ship transfers, a point raised by several hon. Members. For example, section 130 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 already gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations prohibiting ship-to-ship transfers of oil except in designated areas—paragraph (a) of the proposed new subsection 4A—and to take account of emergencies, which is in proposed new subsection 4A(e).
	There is no need to define a ship-to-ship oil transfer as an "oil handling facility" with regard to the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation Convention) Regulations 1998—as proposed in subsection 4A(b) in my hon. Friend's Bill—as the application of those regulations to such transfers is clear. An oil pollution emergency plan must be in place for every relevant harbour authority area and must be approved by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency as being appropriate for dealing with any oil pollution incident that may occur, whether or not it occurs as a result of a ship-to-ship transfer and even if it occurs in an emergency.
	Similarly, the application of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994, as amended, to plans or projects that might adversely affect nature conservation sites—even in the event of an emergency—is already clear, and so paragraph (c) is also unnecessary.
	Finally, paragraph (d) would allow the Secretary of State to classify a ship-to-ship oil transfer or a programme of such transfers as a surface storage of fossil fuels project for the purposes of the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007, except in cases of emergency. I respectfully suggest that that is simply not appropriate. The regulations are not designed or drafted in a way that can be applied in such a way to operations such as ship-to-ship oil transfers. The regulations require environmental impact assessments to be carried out before consent is granted for certain regulated activities in UK waters and UK-controlled waters in cases where that is required to comply with Council directive 85/337/EC—the environmental impact assessment, or EIA, directive. The types of regulated activities to which the regulations apply are deposits in the sea, works to ensure navigational safety and harbour works.
	Of course, we recognise that the framework under which ship-to-ship oil transfers are regulated needs to include appropriate measures to take account of their possible adverse environmental effects. I can also assure the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith that we are investigating and will incorporate appropriate provisions on that matter in the draft regulations that we will bring before Parliament shortly.
	I hope that I .have explained why my hon. Friend's Bill would not achieve his objectives, as well as the fact that some of his objectives are already covered. I assure him that we intend to consult this spring and hope to introduce the new regulations in summer. I therefore hope that he will seek leave to withdraw his Bill.

Crispin Blunt: I apologise to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) for not being present to hear his opening remarks. I must confess that I was caught out by the speed at which the Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) was dispatched. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on getting a place on the ballot. Having just heard the Minister's rather devastating reply, I hope that I can provide some unexpected comfort to the Government. I am nervous about the philosophy behind the approach. I also want to raise one specific issue. I hope that it will be taken into account when the Minister lays the regulations before Parliament later in the year.
	Let me first pick up on the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who said that Mr. Eric Forth, our much-lamented departed colleague, would have approved of the Bill. I can be reasonably confident that our late colleague would not have approved of the measure in any way, shape or form.
	The Minister gave a devastating response, which made it clear that most of the powers proposed by the Bill are already available in one form or another.

Gordon Prentice: Those are all important issues, which can be explored in Committee. I am perfectly prepared for my Bill to be amended in Committee to catch those categories of individuals who should not be serving in the legislature.
	Let me finish on this point. The House of Lords Appointments Commission has registered its view and the Public Administration Committee, of which I am privileged to be a member, recommends a change along the lines that I have suggested. I would like to know the basis of the undertaking that Michael Ashcroft, now Lord Ashcroft, gave in 2000 before being elevated to the peerage. In March 2000, No. 10 Downing street issued a press release, which included this note to editors:
	"In order to meet the requirements for Working Peer, Mr Michael Ashcroft has given his clear and unequivocal assurance that he will take up permanent residence in the United Kingdom again before the end of the calendar year"—
	the year 2000. It continues:
	"He would be introduced into the House of Lords only after taking up that residence. These undertakings have been endorsed by the Leader of the Conservative Party and conveyed to the Prime Minister—and to the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee."
	I want to know the form of the undertaking and to whom that undertaking was given—it is nothing to do with how much tax Lord Ashcroft pays or does not pay—but the Cabinet Secretary has refused my request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The matter is now subject to an internal review, but I fully intend to take this matter to the Information Commissioner. I finish by emphasising that it is totally unacceptable for people to make the laws of the United Kingdom when they do not pay their taxes here.

Philip Davies: Would the principle that people should not make our laws who do not pay taxes here, prevent the European Commission ever making any laws that affect our country? Were that the basis on which the Bill was being brought forward, I would support it wholeheartedly.

Nadine Dorries: I stand here today not only as Member of Parliament for Mid-Bedfordshire, but as the great-granddaughter of the founder of Everton football club. In those days it was a small community town football club known as St. Domingo's. The principles of small football clubs were much as they are today: it was about community, young boys having a focus and a local club, and all that that entails. My great-grandfather's son went on to play football as a goalkeeper, and his grandson has been a member of the amateur Referees' Association for most of his life.
	I am here today to try to protect another club that was started at almost exactly the same time as my great-grandfather started Everton: Luton Town, one of the oldest clubs in English football, founded in 1885. It has been witness to a lively past—unfortunately it has been in administration three times in the last nine years—but my interest today lies with its future more than its past, and with what we can do to ensure that that future remains stable and long-lasting.
	The club went into administration in November last year. The financial directors and controllers had realised that its liabilities and costs were becoming greater, and that administration was the only option. As a result, in accordance with Football League rules, the club lost 10 points. Experienced football insolvency expert Brendan Guilfoyle was one of the three administrators appointed. He has a sound track record of helping other clubs in the same position, including Leeds United. His rescue of Leeds from its first insolvency culminated in the club's paying off its creditors. If anyone is to secure the future of Luton Town football club, Brendan Guilfoyle will certainly be one of those who do so, but what we need, and what we have, is the right combination of administrator, loyal and dedicated fan base—some of whom are here today—and, of course, Luton Town itself.
	All the ingredients are in place to ensure that a good bid is presented, as indeed it has been, by a consortium known as Luton Town 2020. The name represents the bid's objective, which is to secure the club's long-term future. The consortium is led by a lifelong Luton fan and television presenter, Nick Owen. He has done a fantastic job so far in attracting the investment that the club needs, and we hope that it will be possible to inject £10 million into the rescue operation.
	As I have said, the priority is to stabilise the club and ensure that it remains stable in the future, without a repeat of its unfortunate past. As a member of the Football League, the club must abide by the league's rules, which is why 10 points were deducted when it went into administration. It will face more stringent penalties if, during the administration process, it fails to meet other regulations laid down by the league. For example, it must now meet an additional 16-point plan set by the league if it is to emerge from administration. It must establish a company voluntary arrangement, which must be approved by the Football League before any progress can be made. The Football League, in more ways than one, sets the rules of the game and compliance with the CVA is effectively non-negotiable.
	For the record, an exceptional circumstance arrangement can be established and sometimes that is permissible, but the cost would mean that the club would lose a further 15 points on top of the 10 points that have already been deducted. That would mean removal from the Football League, which would be a disaster for the club because it would have an impact on gates and the price of players. It would destroy Luton Town football club and must be avoided.
	Following discussions I have had recently with the administrators, 2020, supporters groups and others, it appears that we are very close to securing the CVA, which would meet the approval of the Football League. That is extremely encouraging and would give Luton Town the fresh start that it desperately needs. However, the club is facing an extreme dilemma. As Benjamin Franklin famously said:
	"But in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes."
	As the Minister may be aware, the club owes about £2.5 million in unpaid taxes to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, which is equivalent to about 80 per cent. of the club's total debt. The magnitude of the debt means that HMRC is likely to object to the CVA and effectively will veto the club's best chance of a sustainable future. That is because, under the CVA, the administrator is allowed to pay football creditors, such as players and other clubs, and they are allowed to receive 100 per cent. of what they are owed. However, other creditors, such as HMRC, are likely to receive nearer to 25 per cent. of what they are due. Ultimately, that will leave the club practically insolvent.
	Clearly in an ideal world, in which none of us live, everybody would be paid in full, but 2020, which is the best option for securing the long-term future of the club, does not have access to the funds needed to extend 100 per cent. payment to everybody—to all the creditors. If HMRC continues to insist on such an arrangement, 2020's bid, which is the only feasible one on the table, will fail completely. The irony is that the taxman will receive nothing if the club becomes insolvent rather than the 25 per cent. he would receive if he went into reasonable negotiations with the club. Although I understand the reasons for HMRC's stance, I fear that intransigence and a lack of ability to negotiate on its part could prove a fatal blow to the club.
	I want to take the opportunity to urge the Minister to make representations to ensure that HMRC takes a more flexible approach to the club's outstanding payments. It is more than just a club; it is not just a case of negotiation between HMRC and the administrators. It is about the lifeblood of an important part of Luton and Bedfordshire. Many of my constituents support Luton Town football club, and football is a beautiful game. It is not just a beautiful game for Liverpool, Manchester United and the clubs in the big super-leagues; it is a beautiful game for the little boys who go home from school at night, put on their boots, go out into the street and pretend they are scoring a goal for the Hatters. It is a beautiful game for any small town that has its own club, which becomes such a vital part of the community.
	Just this week in this Chamber, we had a debate on obesity and the danger it is proving to today's children. The Government have sent out guidelines this week on how we need to encourage our children to move away from their PCs and to get out and engage in more sports. The club is situated in one of the poorest areas of the country and it is vital that a football club should exist in Luton that children can walk to. The club should be there to inspire children and to run youth training schemes and youth leagues so that it is part of the wider Bedfordshire community. I cannot say enough what a loss to Luton and Bedfordshire it would be if HMRC did not negotiate, the bid failed and Luton Town football club ceased to exist tomorrow.
	The issue is not just about Luton Town; it is about other clubs. Many clubs across the UK all too often find themselves in a similar position to the one that Luton Town finds itself in today. If we want our kids to get out from in front of their PCs, let us make sure that local football clubs exist. Let us make sure that they are there to be an inspiration and to make sure that football is not just about those who have the big bucks and can afford to go to the big games and travel to the big matches. Football should be accessible to everyone, particularly in a town such as Luton, which is one of the poorest areas of the country.
	There is another reason why I support the bid: the 2020 consortium is committed to ensuring that Luton Town football club fits snugly as close to Luton as possible. It recognises the importance of it being accessible to Luton fans. It is considering the feasibility of three options for re-siting the club at junction 10, so that Luton Town football fans could still travel to the club without great cost. It is also considering rebuilding the club in the Kenilworth road area, right in the heart of Luton. As far as I am concerned, that is where the football club should be. I agree that Kenilworth Road stadium should be rebuilt. Its rebuilding, and the resulting influx of capital to the area, would be fantastic for Luton. People in Bedfordshire who have always travelled to Luton town to watch the Hatters will still do so; there would be no great change there.
	I am sympathetic to the bid, because those in the consortium take an objective view on what is right for the town, the club and the fans. The bid will not go ahead unless HMRC considers the issues more reasonably. It is not in anyone's interests for the club to fall and to go into insolvency or liquidation. That would not benefit any club in the UK, or the fans or the people of Luton. I hope that the Minister will seriously consider arranging a meeting with HMRC, and bringing the parties together to talk. Perhaps he could arrange and facilitate a meeting between HMRC and the Minister with responsibility for sport, the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), so that they can discuss the best way forward and the best way to help the consortium.
	If the consortium trying to bring Luton out of administration meets the mandatory Football League obligations by paying all football creditors in full, and other creditors a reasonable percentage of the money owed, why should HMRC object? I would like an answer on that specific point from the Minister, if possible. Why would HMRC object, given that otherwise, the outcome would be a reduction in income for the Treasury?
	If the consortium is forced to reduce its offer to football creditors, the Football League will object and refuse to reallocate Luton's membership of the league, meaning that the club will be unable to play league football, and could be forced out of business altogether. I would like the Minister to say what the 2020 consortium should do. It is stuck between a rock, or HMRC, and a hard place, or the Football League. What does he think that the consortium should do to get itself out of that position? It is stuck between one set of measures that will take it into liquidation, and which would mean that the club will fall, and another. There seems to be no way for the club to steer itself out of the problem.
	Will the Minister answering the debate join forces with the hon. Member for Bradford, South, if he still is Minister with responsibility for sport? On Wednesday, I was told that a Treasury Minister would respond to this debate. On Thursday, it was to be someone who would deal with the business side of the issue. The Minister present today is the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. I am not sure who the Minister for sport is at present, but if it still is the hon. Member for Bradford, South—I am not even sure whether he is still a Minister—will the Minister join forces with him and arrange a meeting between the football authorities, the Treasury and the consortium, so that they can reach an understanding that will allow them to deal more sensitively with clubs that find themselves in the same predicament as Luton Town?
	Let us set up framework, so that when another club finds itself in the same position, it knows what to do and where to go. The situation is impossible. Fans want to save the club, and administrators and local people want to do the best for it, but it seems as though everybody else is against the club surviving. Will the Minister facilitate such a framework? We need to know where clubs in such a position can go. The same thing has happened in Leeds. I have also been contacted by Labour Members whose local football clubs have been in the same situation. We need a framework within which small clubs can operate. Football is not just about the championship, or the premiership. It is not just about the super-clubs with the big money; it is about the small clubs, too. That is where the passion for football starts.
	The 2020 consortium has established a reasonable and fair offer for the Treasury—the best offer on the table. The consortium would pay off many of the club's debts and has pledged to prioritise financial stability. I wish that other such organisations considered long-term stability when companies went into administration. Luton Town football club is bringing forward the best deal that anybody could hope for; that is why it seems all the more ironic that HMRC is refusing to negotiate—"refusing" may be too strong, but it certainly seems intransigent about negotiating at the moment. The offer is the best on the table to pay off debts and pledge financial stability so that the club can survive. Stability will ensure that the Treasury sees an ongoing income. If the club fails, the Treasury will get no money at all, or just 25 per cent., but a successful club will bring ongoing income to the Treasury. That makes it all the more ironic and ridiculous that the club should face closure—if it closes, it will provide no income at all to the Treasury.
	Will the Minister answer this specific question? Will he make representations to HMRC to ensure that the 2020 offer is accepted and the club can survive? Surely he agrees that the club's long-term survival is paramount to all. Football is fundamentally a grass-roots sport; it is about little boys playing in the street who believe in their minds that they are playing for the Hatters when they get home from school. It is about people who walk to the match on a Saturday afternoon and about local communities and towns. Luton is one of the poorest towns in the country and it is important that Luton people have access to their football club.
	The Hatters are a great team with a great past. After I attend constituency engagements on Saturdays, I frequently switch on the radio to find out what happened to the Hatters in the afternoon. Bedfordshire people either support the Hatters or their super-club and the Hatters as well. The club has a great past; will the Minister try to ensure that it has a great future as well?